Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18788)	3/10/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 71178

I was NOT a merit finalist. I wasn't even a semifinalist. I scored so badly on the math (in the 500s) that I had to take remedial math before U of R would let me in. I figured they took me on early decision because I scored really high on the Latin Achievements,a real life skill as we all know, and becuase I was so nice. Rin (roomie) scored even worse than I did. We wondered why they wanted us, as Westhampton had a reputation for having very smart but ugly girls (and we were neither). We were told when we got there we were an experimental class made up of girls who were "well-rounded" and "high achieving". (But not very bright?) Our class has been a very successful group in spite of our intellectual limitations so I agree with you about the SATs. However, as a parent, I assure you that ANY success your child has, in any area, from sports to academics to doing a good deed, fills you with pride and joy. CW is blessed with not only intelligence but incredible discipline and focus, besides being extremely competitive. I worry a lot about him because I don't think these are qualities that necessarily lead to contentment and happiness. He has no ability to just-be.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18788)	3/10/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 71178

I agree with your post. However, there is much to be said for identifying children with superior ability and keeping them motivated by teaching them things that they can handle and the other kids can't. This has become acceptable, and indeed, is mandatory in public education in the United States these days. It's kind of a twist on "special education," the parents of children with disabilities were able to get Congress to mandate that they be given better education, and the way it was phrased allowed the parents of gifted children to take advantage of the situation. A generation or two before ours, children with inferior ability did not go to secondary school. There were only a couple of generations where all the kids, regardless of ability, were lumped in together at public school, and everyone pretended that they were the same. In retrospect, that was one reason I enjoyed Catholic school, we were segmented there. I see no reason why children who are able should not be taught subjects which are now reserved for college, like logic, philosophy, rhetoric, and so on.